/m/history

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

What am I missing here? He's more massive than Hank Greenberg, listed at 6'3"/210 lbs. He's more like Rogers Hornsby, listed at 5'11"/175 lbs. Was Hornsby the subject of some Cecil Fielder-esque underreporting?

I mean if you look at Hank Greenberg in this picture here with Lou Gehrig, Joe Cronin, Bill Dickey, Joe DiMaggio, Charlie Gehringer, and Jimmie Foxx he looks pretty massive.

So Cabrera is the best hitter of the 21st century, but has to add some MVPs and Triple Crowns before he can challenge Pujols. Must be due to all those great years Pujols had in the 20th century. Or was it the 19th?

Yeah, I was going to say that "memories of Hornsby" is almost purely a figurative phrase anymore. (Not that TFA claims them literally.) My grandmother saw Hornsby play; my father, who would be 83 if he were even alive, never saw Hornsby (who was playing for the Cubs when my dad was born in Chicago).

It's possible that some 90-year-old Browns fan has keen memories of the elder Hornsby getting into some games in the 1930s. But just in actuarial terms, there weren't a heck of a lot of Browns fans in the first place, so there won't be many survivors :)

Yeah, I was going to say that "memories of Hornsby" is almost purely a figurative phrase anymore. (Not that TFA claims them literally.) My grandmother saw Hornsby play; my father, who would be 83 if he were even alive, never saw Hornsby (who was playing for the Cubs when my dad was born in Chicago).

It's possible that some 90-year-old Browns fan has keen memories of the elder Hornsby getting into some games in the 1930s. But just in actuarial terms, there weren't a heck of a lot of Browns fans in the first place, so there won't be many survivors :)

When he first came up, Hornsby was a skinny guy who could run like the wind (he was a local track star) and could play good shortstop (really). He put on about 25 pounds of muscle because he needed the extra power to become a star MLB hitter, even though it cost him his shortstop range. But Hornsby could always run well, and his defensive problems were mostly the result of an inner-ear infection that cost him his ability to go back for popups after 1923. I don't see too many similarities to Cabrera there. - Brock Hanke

Then what explains the fact that in the only years** during Hornsby's career that they compiled caught stealing numbers (1920-25, ages 24-29), he stole 55 bases while being thrown out 62 times? That would seem to indicate that his defensive skills were primarily grounded in positioning and quick reaction time rather than foot speed, sort of an anti-Jeter.

Hornsby could run well. He had a standing challenge to take on any comers in a foot race, I think. I think the poor stolen base record says more about the carry over from the dead ball era of a mentality that fostered taking chances when it came to running and stealing bases. Although base stealers in the Ruthian era should have foregone taking the chances they had been taking in the Ty Cobb era, they continue doing so for quite a while. There was a lag like there is often when there is a radical change. Some people keep doing things the old way with old attitudes. Indeed there are stories of Ruth doing some risky things on the basepaths.

that's a really good question about Hornsby but there's little doubt about his foot speed. Everyone who saw him says he was very fast. Even the youtube video he looks pretty fast on choppy black and white film.

You can see he led the league in runs scored 5 times and as late as age 33. you have to be fast to do that The baseballpage.com says he had 30 inside the park home runs which I would guess is a lot in any era. Lots of triples too

Hornsby could run well. He had a standing challenge to take on any comers in a foot race, I think. I think the poor stolen base record says more about the carry over from the dead ball era of a mentality that fostered taking chances when it came to running and stealing bases. Although base stealers in the Ruthian era should have foregone taking the chances they had been taking in the Ty Cobb era, they continue doing so for quite a while. There was a lag like there is often when there is a radical change. Some people keep doing things the old way with old attitudes. Indeed there are stories of Ruth doing some risky things on the basepaths.

So I guess that Hornsby was fast on foot but not too interested in learning the techniques of base stealing. Hard to think of any other explanation, unless that inner ear infection threw him off while attempting to steal. If his repeated attempts were simply a carryover from the dead ball era, that doesn't explain why he was so bad at it.

I think the poor stolen base record says more about the carry over from the dead ball era of a mentality that fostered taking chances when it came to running and stealing bases. Although base stealers in the Ruthian era should have foregone taking the chances they had been taking in the Ty Cobb era, they continue doing so for quite a while. There was a lag like there is often when there is a radical change.

There is probably something to what you say but given his speed Hornsby should be doing better if he really was the fastest guy in the NL. He looks to be a 50% base stealer in the live ball era, he's still in his mid 20s when it began.

Much of the dead ball era in Baseballrefence is incomplete (but I guess it is a work in progress) so the career stats listed there are misleading. But going for the years they have CS data most base stealers are better than this:

Of the famous guys, really only Max Carey is outstanding, unless I have missed someone:

Max Carey looks to be about a 90% at his peak in the early 20s; and at least 75% in the dead ball era. Frisch is at least 70%. Eddie Collins is at least 70% in the dead ball era and even in the live ball, he's about that. Cobb in the dead ball era is surprisingly only about 70%, in his 30s in the live ball era he's about the same, albeit much less attempts. Ray Chapman who died in 1920 is at 67%. Speaker is about 60% in dead ball, not much later on.

some less famous: Braggo Roth is about 67-70% Maranville about the same, even when younger in the dead ball era. Sislers about 70%. Leaping Mike Menosky is about 70%. Sam Rice about 75%

Then you have guys who steal a lot and the percentages maybe dont add up:

Edd Roush looks to be about a 50% base stealer at least around age 30, he maybe 60% when younger in the dead ball era. Billy Southworth's no better than 50%. Carson Bigbee is about 60%. George Burns is no better than 50% in the lively ball era and maybe 60% in the dead ball era. Ken WIlliams is about 55%, mainly live ball era. Jigger Stats about 55%; lively ball era only.

Like you said, there might be some carryover strategy based on how baseball was played in the dead ball era. For instance Cobb's 70% rate might be a decent proposition in the dead ball era, given low scoring. However in the live ball era, one would have to think this number might be a minimum or even a litle higher to make stealing worth while. But they have guys that they are sending who are only 50 or 60% in a high scoring era.

Also on Hornsby, he is in the single digits in steals every year after age 27, (1923) so he's not really a factor on the bases. ANd his fielding range seems to take a hit after age 29, when his triples also fall off. Bill James mentions most of his foot ailments, he had bone spurs about age 30, but he had a broken leg earlier and bad ankle before that so maybe that finally stopped him on the basepaths at an early age.

He might have been a really good percentage stealer in the dead ball era, but this data is still not yet collated.

The rush to anoint Cabrera as the greatest hitter we've ever seen is very surprising to me in light of the fact that anyone who can write their own name should be able to remember Bonds and Pujols. I can't believe how many times I've heard "I've never seen anything like it!" or similar sentiments. Yes. You. Have. Repeatedly.

Cabrera is a great hitter having a great season, but this is really the first year he's been performing at even peak Pujols level (which Pujols did for about 10 years). And I know people like to forget that Barry Bonds ever happened, but like it or not, he's the 2nd-best player of all time and has an argument for 1st. Let's all take a breather.

Players took many more chances running the bases and stealing bases in the dead ball era. It shouldn't be expected that they had the success rate that later was mandated. This daring carried over for a long while, even when the times and conditions no longer warranted it.

it seems like agressive stealing went on in the NL till about 1929 when the league still had almost 700 SBs. Then tailed off finally getting to about 400 by 1933 and remaining around there. It goes up in 1940 to 475... Its funny it took that long, but we dont have CS from the mid 20s and afterwards.

I'm not surprized that Hornsby has lousy SB% numbers, nor that his total of SB attempts was low (they're probably mostly hit and runs, like guys in the 1950s). One of the negatives that seems to always come up about Hornsby was that he didn't like to do anything that was physically risky. He seemed to think (with reason) that things like getting spiked on double play pivots or turning an ankle stealing a base just were not worth losing his bat in the lineup. It's sort of like Jim Brown and blocking. It's not that Brown could not block. It's that Jim regarded asking him to block to be counterproductive. He could see having plays where he was not the ballcarrier, so the other team couldn't just stack up against him, and the play would give him a rest. But if he were asked to block on said play, that was as much work as carrying the ball, and, if you were going to work him, you might as well give him the ball, since he was a much better option than anyone else you had out there. Both Hornsby and Brown were right, but it came across as selfish. I don't know what either player's teammates thought about these quirks. I do know that a small number did not like them, but not the teams as a whole.

And it wasn't roids that put 25 pounds on Hornsby, it was steak and milk, if his biography is to be believed. He's quoted as, when he came up, being a lousy hitter. His manager told him that he was going to farm Rogers out for the winter. Hornsby, being only the second player from the Old Confederacy to enter the NL (Eppa Rixey), did not know the term "farm out" and thought it meant he should spend the winter doing farm work, to put on some muscle. Well, Hornsby's extended family was a bunch of farmers in Texas, many of whom kept cattle. So Hornsby went to one of those family members and spent the winter doing farm work and eating all the steak and drinking all the milk he could hold. He gained about 25 pounds, but it wasn't fat, because he worked so hard. When he returned to the Cardinals, his range at shortstop was dicey, but his hitting had just exploded.

One other note. Hornsby's large number of inside-the-park homers probably comes mostly from before 1920. Through 1919, the Cards played in a park with an impossible left field distance. You get a line drive past the left fielder, and you can really run, you're getting home, but you're not hitting it over that fence. In 1920, the Cards became tenants of the Browns in Sportsman's Park, which had a normal left field territory. Hornsby, who was paying attention when Babe Ruth started hitting all those homers, suddenly found himself with a LF fence he could reach, and became one of the first big-homer hitters in the NL, if not the absolute first.

Cabrera is a great hitter having a great season, but this is really the first year he's been performing at even peak Pujols level (which Pujols did for about 10 years). And I know people like to forget that Barry Bonds ever happened, but like it or not, he's the 2nd-best player of all time and has an argument for 1st. Let's all take a breather.

Well...while this is the first year that Cabrera's putting up an OPS+ comparable to Pujols' three best (200 for Cabrera, 192/189/187 for Pujols), his last four years have seen him go 178-179-164-200 for an average of 179. Which is basically a dead ringer for Pujols from 2003 (the year he took his big leap forward from "merely" awesome to one of the greats) through 2009 (his fourth and likely final season of 1.100 OPS, though he still put up a 173 OPS+ the next year), when he averaged a 178. Hell, even if you add in 2010 it's 177. So Cabrera has basically been Pujols for a few seasons now, though it's really the longevity that made Pujols what he is. There are worse players like Jim Thome, Jason Giambi, et al that put up hitting seasons even better than Pujols' best, but he did it for eight years in a row (not even counting his first two seasons where he was still hitting like an average Stan Musial season). If Cabrera can manage that, it'd be impressive considering he's already 30, but it's not impossible.

Also, holy crap, Jason Giambi is still in baseball? I thought he retired like four years ago.

I don't know what either player's teammates thought about these quirks. I do know that a small number did not like them, but not the teams as a whole.

When the greatest righthanded hitter in baseball is traded 3 times in 3 consecutive years, that might give us a clue about his popularity outside the Hornsby family, especially given the complete lack of talent that the Giants and the Braves got in return. (At least the Cardinals got Frankie Frisch, although that was kind of like trading Miguel Cabrera for Ryan Zimmerman.)

(Fun fact: As of now, Miggy's 155 career OPS+ is identical to Joe Dimaggio's.)

Jolly - I took a long look at Hornsby's trade history, because my dad was a fountain of info about Hornsby (Dad became a rabid baseball fan in 1920, living in St. Louis). There is only one 3-year window when he was traded every year, 1926-1928, so that's all there is to explain. Other than those three years, Hornsby did not get traded. Dad thought that the reason the Cards traded Hornsby had nothing to do with Sam Breadon, really. It was that Branch Rickey wanted to take all the credit for the 1926 team's performance, and Hornsby thought a lot of that credit should go his way. Hornsby had a point. In 1925, the Cards were playing badly, with Branch Rickey as field manager, a job for which his personality was not suited. Rickey moved to GM and Hornsby was installed as manager halfway through the year, and the team immediately began to play like they would play through 1926. Hornsby was of the opinion that he'd done a great managerial job in 1925-26, especially because his best player (Rogers Hornsby) had a REALLY off year (for Rogers Hornsby). Rickey talked Breadon into trading Hornsby - to the Giants. Managed by John McGraw.

Well, Hornsby, as soon as the trade was announced, apparently thought that he needed to get himself a managerial job, to prove that he was a genius manager and Rickey was full of hot air. The Giants' job was, shall we say, not open. Hornsby fell to quarreling with McGraw (who would have guessed, given the two personalities?), so McGraw decided to get rid of him, even though Hornsby was McGraw's best player at the time. So he got traded to the Braves, who were trying to spend some money to buy a pennant, and who were willing to let Hornsby manage as long as he as willing to play for the dreadful Braves. It turned out that no one could have gotten a good record from the Braves team. Their second-best hitter, behind Hornsby, was the fading George Sisler, who was the other star they had picked up for the 1928 season. That didn't work at all, and the Braves didn't really have any more money to spend, so they traded the expensive Hornsby away to the Cubs. Where Joe McCarthy was the manager. To the credit of both Hornsby and McCarthy, who hated southerners, they were able to work together and produced an instant pennant, even though they lost their superstar catcher, Gabby Harnett, for the entire season. Suddenly, Hornsby stopped getting traded. He waited until McCarthy went away and then became manager of the Cubs, which did finally convince everybody that Hornsby was not a genius manager, although he may have been a lot better than Branch Rickey at it.

This makes sense as a story. It forces you to focus on Hornsby as a manager instead of as a player, but the story does make sense. And it does explain the three-year flurry of yearly trades, followed by several years where he was not traded from the Cubs. I'm not saying that I am completely sure this is the true explanation. I'm working off the childhood memories of my dad, and some little confirmation from Bob Broeg, who was about my dad's age, and equally rabid about baseball, and who then went on to become a major STL baseball writer. But this story does hold up to examination. - Brock

Jolly - I took a long look at Hornsby's trade history, because my dad was a fountain of info about Hornsby (Dad became a rabid baseball fan in 1920, living in St. Louis). There is only one 3-year window when he was traded every year, 1926-1928, so that's all there is to explain. Other than those three years, Hornsby did not get traded. Dad thought that the reason the Cards traded Hornsby had nothing to do with Sam Breadon, really. It was that Branch Rickey wanted to take all the credit for the 1926 team's performance, and Hornsby thought a lot of that credit should go his way.

I've seen that interpretation before, but that's not the way it was related in Lee Lowenfish's bio of Rickey. According to Lowenfish, Breadon was steamed at Hornsby for first trying to get his team out of playing a September exhibition game in New Haven in the heat of the stretch drive; second for sending only his scrubs while staying in New York to take in a Yankee game; and most important, when he broke the news to Hornsby that the game wouldn't be cancelled, he did so in the Cardinals' clubhouse after a tough loss, whereupon Hornsby ended the conversation by saying "All right, but I won't send the first team! Now get the hell out of my clubhouse!" It was that reference to "my" clubhouse that was the final straw for Breadon, and after the World Series he took the opportunity to trade Hornsby. In fact he was so determined to get rid of Hornsby that he offered him only a one year contract, loaded it down with clauses about Hornsby's personal habits, and when Hornsby turned him down he admitted "I was so determined to get rid of Hornsby that I was afraid he might accept my one year offer."

The irony is that the only reason that Frisch himself was even available was that he'd been in McGraw's dog house for most of the year. McGraw had blistered Frisch after a key mental error had cost the Giants a game, and Frisch had reacted by bolting the team for several days. Needless to say, that didn't go over too well, so in the end it boiled down to a double spite trade.

Up until the mid-1930s really, it was very common for the greatest players in the game to want to take on the role of manager as well. Especially after Tris Speaker won a WS title with the Indians in 1920. This greatly impacted Cobb's decision to take on the Tigers managerial job, and it influenced others like Hornsby and Frisch (for whom he was traded of course).

I would take umbrage with #29 - Frisch was an excellent ballplayer. One of the 10 best second basemen to ever play the game. He's one of the best world Series performers in history, probably impacted more pennant races and Fall Classics than any player in his league during his career, and is one of the most important figures in baseball history who is often overlooked. In his time, every year when you talked about the game and who would be in the middle of things, Frisch's name would have been among the 5-6 to always be mentioned. He was a big deal, as they say.

As an aside, he had a long, quite nasty feud with pitcher Burleigh Grimes. They hated each other with passion and it erupted into fisticuffs a few times.

I would take umbrage with #29 - Frisch was an excellent ballplayer. One of the 10 best second basemen to ever play the game. He's one of the best world Series performers in history, probably impacted more pennant races and Fall Classics than any player in his league during his career, and is one of the most important figures in baseball history who is often overlooked. In his time, every year when you talked about the game and who would be in the middle of things, Frisch's name would have been among the 5-6 to always be mentioned. He was a big deal, as they say.

You're probably right, but not by as much as you might think. When Frisch was traded to the Cardinals at the age of 27, his career OPS+ to that point was 116, and his accumulated WAR was 37.8. Zimmerman's comparable numbers up through last year, when he was 27, were 120 and 30.2. The difference between the two consists largely of Frisch's managerial and postseason performances, and by the fact that only in Frisch's case do we know what he did after he turned 28. It's not a perfect comparison, but I'm not sure if you could find many better ones.

P.S. If you ever want to read a terrific memoir, try Frisch's The Fordham Flash. His description of a 1931 Sunday doubleheader against the Cubs, with a Sportsman's Park crowd that was about 50% over capacity, is alone worth the price of the book.

According to Lowenfish, Breadon was steamed at Hornsby for first trying to get his team out of playing a September exhibition game in New Haven in the heat of the stretch drive; second for sending only his scrubs while staying in New York to take in a Yankee game; and most important, when he broke the news to Hornsby that the game wouldn't be cancelled, he did so in the Cardinals' clubhouse after a tough loss, whereupon Hornsby ended the conversation by saying "All right, but I won't send the first team! Now get the hell out of my clubhouse!" It was that reference to "my" clubhouse that was the final straw for Breadon, and after the World Series he took the opportunity to trade Hornsby.

Everything in that story makes Hornsby sound really smart, and Breadon sound like a greedy ass.

When the greatest righthanded hitter in baseball is traded 3 times in 3 consecutive years, that might give us a clue about his popularity outside the Hornsby family.....

Why is it like half the threads and half the posts on BTF read like regurgitated Bill James? I guess that's because this is the same stance he took on HOrnsby, which was based on a sort of summary glance at the big picture w/o any attempt to really look at the players involved. if you look closely at those trades they are not at all absurd.

The first one is for Frisch, who was also a Hall of Famer and played the same position. He's a couple years younger but also he is a better % base stealer and certainly a much better fielder. He led the NL in range factor 3x in this period and also had a 2nd. (about 6.3 per game) Even a conservative guess means he was getting to at least a 100 balls a year more than Hornsby (comes in about 5.3/game) playing the same position. YOu would have to do some incredible rationalizations to believe that the NYG pitching staff was able to get every hitter to bounce out to Frisch. Frisch's outstanding fieldrange lased for about 5 more seasons and he was still pretty good after that.

Running the bases per se, Hornsby is still probably faster. Frisch also was able to play the other inf positions so who knows? but maybe this too might be a factor too. It's hard for stat based people to figure positional versatility for whatever reasons (e.g. using certain norms or "replacement levels" as a yardstick for every position), but a manager might have practical in game reasons for valuing such.

ANyhow, stat heads, just like Bill James never seem to see as much value in defense as I do; and so this sort of stuff hardly ever gets mentioned. Even if my guess is off it is quite possible that NL managers in their delusional minds might thought this way about Frisch. Jimmy Ring was a throw in in that deal, he had about 2 or 3 above averages seasons prior to this, (he was also very wild) but nothing good after the trade.

So basically while this deal might look lopsided for offensive minded Bill James type of analysis it's not hard to take a rough guess and estimate that a hundred ground balls through the right side of your infield might equate to 50 runs or 5 wins. (linear wt of a single, plus half the time you probably move a baserunner up a base).

It's quite possibly Frisch has enuf on def. to offset HOrnsby's advantage in hitting, Hornsby probably has about 5 games advantage here. Also Frisch has about 23 SB a year for the next 7 years; assuming these are high leverage situations, he could easily be worth another game for his baserunning. So you have Frisch which if you value: SB, fielding range, and def versatility, he's probably a push with Hornsby; and throw in Jimmy Ring, just in case, to add a little more and you have a pretty fair deal.

It's funny how these deals look so lopsided in the BIll James/stat freak world of baseball, but when you start to look at defense more closely and take some educated guesses, it turns out that these deals start to make sense.

Have you looked closely at the second trade? The Giants get catcher Shanty Hogan and a CF named Jimmy Welsh.

At this pt. in time Shanty Hogan had just played about half season as a 21 year old kid and led the league in catching baserunners with a 58% mark. He only lead the league one more time, but if you compare the actual number of SB on him to other catchers during this era, he's right up there with Earl Smith and Jimmy Wilson. Teams steal about 0.3 bases a game on him vs about 0.6 vs league average. It depends on how you value SB, but if these are mostly high leverage situations, they might be worth 0.5 runs and Hogan might be worth say 20 runs on defense (say 120 games, times 0.3, times 1/2, 18 runs or so).

Hogan gave the NYG about 11.6 Off wins vs replacement in his 5 years there (I'm taking OffWar straight from Baseballreference). He actually had 130 OPS his first year in NY and came in 8th in MVP voting. He was average to above average as a hitter in a 13 year career. Defensively Baseball reference only gives him a fraction of a game, but if you look at baserunning a little differently he could very well be worth 2 games a year there And he's ten years younger than Hornsby. He could have turned into an Al Lopez or Jimmie WIlson but he didnt last quite that long but he's not a bad bet at all. He could very well be giving you a little over 4 wins a year at an important def. position

Jimmy Welsh is 24 years old. He's 7 years younger and he just had 20 assists from CF the year before (2nd in NL). The two previous years he led the NL in assists from Rf w/ 26/27. He can cover CF pretty well maybe a range factor of 3.0 Hes not as good as Taylor Douthit who probably gets to 30 more fly balls a year, but he's probably as good as Lloyd Waner or Ethan ALlen. Welsh might get to 30 fly balls more a year than say Ed Roush or Hack Wilson (actually playing CF at this pt in Chi)

Its hard to say what his arm would be worth at this pt. if he can make 10 kills a year more than average (not at all unreasonable) that might be 7 runs. And he might be prevent 15 or 20 advances on the basepaths. Maybe another 10 runs. Defensively he might be worth up to two wins.

At some pt in NY his arm must have fallen off or something. The Giants brought in 35 year old Ed Roush for CF a year later(Roush lasted 2 seasons) and Welsh went to Boston, where he lasted a couple of years until replaced by a kid 5 years younger named Earl Clark, until they moved Wally Berger there the year after that.

Welsh gets credit for about 1.5 wins a year offensively during this time period and very little on defense. But his defense could be worth up to 2 wins if his arm remains a cannon. Look at his assist numbers: who gets 20 assists from CF? Or 27 from RF? Clemente, that's about it. So for three years he had a cannon of an arm and speed enuf to cover CF. That kid had real talent.

So again, if you go with the Bill James, defense is worth a fraction of an eyelash, these deals make no sense. But if you do a little more thinking about defense, suddenly these deals dont seem so bad

You trade Hornsby whose worth 9-10 wins a year on offense, for 2 solid, central defenders, worth about 3.5 and 4 wins a year. One of them is 10 years younger and the other 7 years younger. Isnt that precisely what the math would tell you? 10 wins for a guy in mid career for 2 young guys worth 7.5 wins?

What's the problem? I get that Hornsby was an a-hole. Everyone knows that. But you wouldnt just give away HOrnsby either. The fans would be upset and the owner would kill you. Hell the fans probably were upset, but management, coaches, front office types. they can see the reasoning.

And what about the third trade?? No I am not about to go through the grab bag of spare parts that the Giants sent to Boston, maybe some other day.

They sent over 5 guys, I dunno who they were, honestly, but also $200,000 in cash. Now how do you value that? Well that's easy right? You simply look up how much inflation has grown since 1929 or whenever and do the math.

My uncle said a loaf of bread cost a nickel during the depression, so that roughly makes 200k into $4 million dollars. OK $4 million is nothing in todays baseball market. That's like what 50 games of ARod? That's not much.

However, that's assuming baseball is still the same financial behemouth in 1928 that it is today. That's really quite a stretch dont you think? Was baseball really this well off in 1928? There were no tv revenues And there were competing minor leagues And a whole bunch of negro ball players in other leagues, that actually drew fans. But not one to organize them and put them on national tv or anything like that.

What if the financials of baseball in 1929 were more like north american soccer? or the WNBA? or pro wrestling? What then? Does $4 million dollars sound pretty good? What if your team is not in New York and it's the other team in Boston? What if it's the worst team in the WNBA? WHat then?

So think about it. Maybe 4 million for Hornsby after bone spurs have halted his speed, and a bag of spare ball players. Maybe that's not a bad deal too?

I think that, even if you want to argue that the teams trading Hornsby got more in return than is generally accepted (and I'm not buying most of your baseball analysis there to be honest), it's still notable that the guy was simply traded three times. If there's no free agency, and you have one of the greatest players of all time in his prime on your team, you normally can't be talked into trading him. You just keep him through his entire prime, because the contract never compels you to trade him, and you can't get fair baseball value for a guy like that. That's what happened with Anson, Cobb, Gehrig, Ott, Foxx, DiMaggio, Mantle, Berra, Mays, Musial, Ted Williams, Yaz, Walter Johnson, Mathewson, Feller, Spahn, Aaron, Mathews, pretty much everyone I can think of. Ruth, Wagner, Cy Young and Eddie Collins got traded once because their team was selling everything that wasn't nailed down. Frank Robinson was traded once out of stupidity. Is there another player this good pre-free agency who was traded twice in his prime, never mind three times?

Now, it certainly doesn't make Hornsby a bum. But I do think it's something you can fairly factor in if you're comparing him to e.g. Joe Morgan or someone else who was a comparable talent. One guy's a pain in the butt (as you yourself admit), the other guy isn't (unless you make him your announcer). It does mean something.

Hornsby, as soon as the trade was announced, apparently thought that he needed to get himself a managerial job, to prove that he was a genius manager and Rickey was full of hot air. The Giants' job was, shall we say, not open. Hornsby fell to quarreling with McGraw (who would have guessed, given the two personalities?), so McGraw decided to get rid of him

Brock, that version may well be true, but it's interesting that Charles Alexander, who wrote biographies of both McGraw and Hornsby, has an almost opposite interpretation. According to Alexander's John McGraw, McGraw was ill for much of the 1927 season, and losing interest in field managing when he was well. McGraw was only 54, but he would die at the age of 60, and his 50s were years of poor health in which he increasingly turned over in-game management to captains and assistants, including Frisch, Hornsby, and Dave Bancroft. Alexander's version has Hornsby making a mortal enemy of Giants' owner Charles Stoneham, who engineered the trade to Boston (with McGraw's acquiescence, says Alexander, though McGraw wasn't crazy about the idea; the Giants played very well for Hornsby in '27).

Alexander does note that McGraw and Frisch fought like cats, but finds no bad blood between McGraw and Hornsby, despite Hornsby's grandstanding.

Mental image of McGraw lurking on top of a refrigerator waiting to pounce on an unwary Hornsby.

Bill Terry had the only workable strategy I've heard of with McGraw. They didn't speak for two years after Terry told McGraw to STFU (the version that reached the press is amusing to read. Pretty clearly cleaned up. Nobody knows exactly what Terry said, but McGraw is reported to have responded with something like, "Nobody says that to me". But whatever he said, it kept McGraw off his back for years)

You get the gist of it; sorry I'm not smart enough to make it look pretty.

EDIT: Wanted to add - FRob won the triple crown (and MVP) as a 30 year old, with an OPS+ of 198; Cabrera won the triple crown and MVP as a 29 year old, and has an OPS+ this year of 200. I think Robinson's secretary was named "Cabrera", too.

Well, the thing about Miggy is that it doesn't seem like he's following a normal aging curve.... He reached a new level of performance in 2010 - he was certainly a star performing at historically HoF levels from 2004 through 2009, but 2010 pretty much had him knocking on the door of Pujolsian levels. This year - he's likely (absent a complete September collapse) to smash career highs virtually across the board in virtually every offensive category. Obviously, his value is pretty much all bat (plus positional adjustment), unlike Pujols.

I think I like the Frank Robinson comparison because like Miggy -- Frank has his finest season at age 30, followed that up with another 'among his finest' at 31 (2nd best OPS+, though oWAR says only his 4th best), then tacked on additional ~7ish WAR (tied for 3rd best) season at 33.

Of course, Robinson had a bit to prove post-trade, I guess...

Any way you slice it, Cabrera seems to have reach a new, higher level of performance (at least offensively). That just seems somewhat odd - given that he was a superstar at age 21.

Any way you slice it, Cabrera seems to have reach a new, higher level of performance (at least offensively). That just seems somewhat odd - given that he was a superstar at age 21.

Wasn't he dogged by rumors of a drinking problem throughout his early career? It's possible that he did have a problem (or maybe was just partying a little too hard) and finally cleaned up his act and got more serious about his career the past couple of years. Might help explain the new level of performance.

Wasn't he dogged by rumors of a drinking problem throughout his early career? It's possible that he did have a problem (or maybe was just partying a little too hard) and finally cleaned up his act and got more serious about his career the past couple of years. Might help explain the new level of performance.

Definitely a possibility. He allegedly was drunk for a game in 2009 after a night of drinking and a fight with his wife. He went to rehab in Jan of 2010 and was arrested for suspicion of a DUI in 2011.

But he seems to have cleaned up since (or at least has not gotten into any more trouble), even going so far as to avoid the champagne celebrations in 2012.

I find it odd that writers have so quickly forgotten Pujols in their rush to talk about Cabrera. I am a fan of Miguel, but he is not yet in Pujols league for his career (and Cabrera's later start in getting to those annual numbers will likely prevent him from getting there).

Perhaps the three traditional batting metrics (batting average, RBI and home runs) hold more sway than we think? Cabrera has lead his league 6 times in those categories to only four for Pujols (and Cabrera is likely to add at least one more this year).

---He never had the Godzilla level home run power of Mantle, with no legendary tape measure shots that come to mind to compare to Mantle's top 20.

---He spent most of his career three time zones away from the East Coast, at a time before interleague play. That limited his out of town regular season exposure to 9 times a year plus a scattering of GOTW appearances.

---He played in only three World Series, and played poorly in the last two of those.

---His hitting, great as it was, was often overshadowed by his reputation for all-around play. It's rather telling that for a slugger with 660 home runs, you have to be a connoisseur of the 1962 stretch drive to remember any home run of his that pops to mind as quickly as that 1954 catch.

Perhaps the three traditional batting metrics (batting average, RBI and home runs) hold more sway than we think? Cabrera has lead his league 6 times in those categories to only four for Pujols (and Cabrera is likely to add at least one more this year).

It's funny. Context seems to only matter when a writer wants it to.

Pujols had 43, 46, 41, 49 HRs in consecutive years, but didn't lead the league any of those years; it was only later, with totals of 47 and 42 that he lead the league. This is only the 2nd year Cabrera has had 40+ HRs, and he once lead the league with 37.

Pujols has had 6 seasons with more than 120 RBI and 3 with more than 130; he's lead the league once. This is the 4th season Cabrera has had 120+ RBI and 2nd with 130+, and is the 3rd he's lead the league (assuming he hold this year's lead).

Pujols' top years by BA are .359, .357, twice at .331, and .330; he lead the league only the year he hit .359. Cabrera's top years are .358, .344, .339, .330, and .328; three of those 5 times he's lead the league (again, assuming this year).

So by raw numbers, Pujols has been better in these traditional stats, but he just never lead the league.

I find it odd that writers have so quickly forgotten Pujols in their rush to talk about Cabrera. I am a fan of Miguel, but he is not yet in Pujols league for his career (and Cabrera's later start in getting to those annual numbers will likely prevent him from getting there).

Perhaps the three traditional batting metrics (batting average, RBI and home runs) hold more sway than we think? Cabrera has lead his league 6 times in those categories to only four for Pujols (and Cabrera is likely to add at least one more this year).

It's mostly just a function of Pujols not really being PUJOLS since 2010, while Cabrera has been absolutely filling up the stat sheet with black ink since 2011. Short memories and lousy timing (for Pujols); just when Pujols starting showing his mortality, Cabrera morphed into the player Pujols had been for the past decade.

#45 Here's one way to look at this: Season with 500+PAs and an OPS+ of 150 or better.

Note that I've chosen to combine partial season (IE Hornsby had 3 great partial seasons that work out to roughly two seasons worth of 185 OPS+. Also, Bagwell's best season missed the cut by PAs so I've blended it with his best season that missed the cut by OPS+. Comes out as a 175 OPS+ which may be miserly. Those seasons marked with a * -- always listed at the end)

So Aarron, Mays and Robinson don't have quite as much in their best years (though you can argue conditions -- particularly in the mid-60s -- kept the lid on rate stats. They'll probably do slightly better in some other methods) but have a huge number of really good years.

Don't really see any argument for Mays over Aaron as a hitter though. They're really pretty similar and Aaron kept it up longer.

55 -- I'm not saying Mays was the greatest RH hitter of all time, but it just seems like he's thought of more as a great CF and great all around player than he is a great hitter, yet your chart shows that he was very similar to guys like Pujols and Ramirez. Imagine Manny Ramirez as the best CF in baseball...

re: Mays - it is expected thsat GREAT hitters who bat in the middle of the order often lead their legaue in RBI, which Mays never did (despite playing for teams which scored many runs). Of course this a curious oddity which is only true due to the convening varibales of lousy Giant #1 and #2 hitters, Mays hitting 3rd (or even leadoff) not 4th at times, the presence of FRobby and Aaron, an incredible 1962 by Tommy Davis, home parks not to his advantage, and Mays being more consistently great than a guy like Mantle who was often very good and at time surreal.

But there it is; Mays never led in RBI.

He was the most consistent player to be the best at scoring runs we ever saw. Name a year he wasn't greta at scoring runs.

The rush to anoint Cabrera as the greatest hitter we've ever seen is very surprising to me in light of the fact that anyone who can write their own name should be able to remember Bonds and Pujols. I can't believe how many times I've heard "I've never seen anything like it!" or similar sentiments. Yes. You. Have. Repeatedly.

Cabrera is a great hitter having a great season, but this is really the first year he's been performing at even peak Pujols level (which Pujols did for about 10 years). And I know people like to forget that Barry Bonds ever happened, but like it or not, he's the 2nd-best player of all time and has an argument for 1st. Let's all take a breather.

What's going on with Cabrera reminds me of what went on with peak ARod: you've got an outstanding hitter though not a historically inner-circle great one being vastly overrated.

In Cabrera's case this is largely because of the trivia known as the triple crown. As you note, this year is the first historically great season Cabrera has put up.

One thing I like to do with single season leaderboards is take a player's best year only, so if I'm looking at top 20 single season OPS+ leaders I've got 20 names instead of about 8 Babe Ruth seasons and a small handful of other names.

Cabrera right now has exactly a 200 OPS+. If he maintains that he'll be the 19th player, post 1900, to have such a season. Pujols' best was 192, good for 30th.

What's going on with Cabrera reminds me of what went on with peak ARod: you've got an outstanding hitter though not a historically inner-circle great one being vastly overrated.

Not really. The thing about ARod is that he was hitting like that as a really good SS, as compared to doing it as a crappy 1B/horrible 3B.

By BBREF batting runs, ARod has 6 seasons of 50+ while Cabrera has 5; both have 2 over 60. But by Owar (position adjustment, no fielding ability adjustment) ARod has 6 seasons better than Cabrera's best, and by WAR (which also adds fielding ability) ARod has 8 seasons better than, and one more equal to, Cabrera's best.

I don't think anyone claimed ARod was more than the best hitter in the league, while there are articles like this likening Cabrera to the all-time greats.

EDIT: Through age-30, ARod was a slightly better hitter than Cabrera by batting runs, even including his age-18 and 19 seasons when he obviously wasn't ready (and ages that Cabrera wasn't in the league), and by adding in baserunning, position and defense was worth 30 more WAR - essentially, he was worth 1 1/2 Cabreras.

I can't believe we're 65 posts into this thread without the #2 RH hitter today, and best overall player, being mentioned, who will be robbed of an MVP for the second year in a row. Trout is on pace for 9.9 bWAR and 11.1 fWAR, and is not even being given a mention in the MVP race.

He is again destined to win the American League’s most valuable player award — despite the current wounds and injuries that he has tried so courageously to ignore

Ignoring the hagiographic rhetoric for a moment, is that a valid statement if Cabrera misses most of September, ends up with 130 games played or so? He's likely to win a batting title and lead in other rate stats if he does, but will lose the Runs title, probably the RBI title, and slip down other leaderboards.

Guys have won with fewer appearances, of course, though not very often. The Tigers are likely to win their division, proving that 5 months of Cabrera is good enough to get you into the playoffs. Should they go into a tailspin, it proves even more that he is TEH MVP.

It would make an interesting case. I reckon a similar thing happened with Josh Hamilton in 2010, so Cabrera probably would win.

I dunno, Ray, you're arguing subjective characterizations here. Cabrera is pretty good, so was AROD. Is the issue how agitated people got over them and what occasional hyperbole they might have used? "Historically great" might mean different things to different users. I had some cake for lunch that I thought was historically great, but I get excited over stuff sometimes.

I think historically great hitters either (1) put up multiple historically great seasons, which for me (to choose an arbitrary cutoff) is ~200 OPS+, or (2) have extended peaks/primes at ~170 OPS+ or greater.

So, yes, there are only 10-12 such modern hitters or so. Basically, I see it as a top 10 hitter all time (modern era), give or take.

Ignoring the hagiographic rhetoric for a moment, is that a valid statement if Cabrera misses most of September, ends up with 130 games played or so?

Yeah, probably. Davis could surge ahead of him, but Trout is mired in the drag of the Angel's mediocrity.

you've got an outstanding hitter though not a historically inner-circle great one being vastly overrated.

In some ways I get the Cabrera gushing, but in other ways I don't. To me, Cabrera is the best hitter I've ever seen..."best" meaning "most skillful," not necessarily "most valuable." Cabrera's effortlessness, his ability to go the other way, protect the plate, outthink pitchers, handle impossibly good pitches off both halves of the plate, etc. is simply awe-inspiring. I can't think of a hitter who does everything well the way Cabrera does. On the other hand, there are hitters who do/did lots of things nearly as well as Cabrera, and do/did some things BETTER, leading to them being just as valuable, or more valuable than Cabrera with the bat in their hands.

Nevertheless, Cabrera's...uh...artfulness at the plate is amazing to me. He's like a hitting textbook, or what I imagine Ted Williams was like.

But I don't see skillful/artful as being a good way to describe McGwire. It was an awesome display of power to be sure, and it does take a lot of skill to apply that kind of power effectively, but word choices are meant to convey a mental picture and to me "artful" evokes images of (say) George Brett in his prime.

#73, I don't see how he's more skillful/artful - in the sense that you mean - than Bonds or McGwire, to name two hitters of recent vintage that I've seen.

When those two hitters were up, people stopped and watched them.

To be sure. Bonds is the most valuable hitter I've ever watched, but I'm being subjective here with the "artfulness" distinction. Bonds, to me, was much more ruthlessly efficient than Cabrera is, and I don't mean that as an insult. He had more power, more patience, and a better eye. He (correctly) laid off pitches that Cabrera hits. Cabrera is not a take and rake hitter at all; he's up there to swing the bat, and he'll chase some questionable pitches to do so. It's not always wise, but it's fun to watch, and allows him to showcase his ridiculous skill when swinging said bat.

Some of this, of course, is selection bias. Bonds could probably turn around some of the tough pitches that Cabrera turns around, he was just selective enough not to swing at them. As someone who, from an aesthetic standpoint, is not quite ready to welcome our take and rake overlords just yet, I enjoy watching Cabrera much more than Bonds.

Agreeing with 77, but adding I don't see how Cabrera compares to Bonds when it comes to any compliment you might want to hand out regarding batting, be it "artfulness," value, or anything else outside of "ability to hit from the third base side of the plate".

edit: posted before I saw 78. You're free to approach things as you want. However, though this is entirely subjective, you are wrong.

Further evidence - and again speaking of aesthetics, although I grant this is subjective: Miguel Cabrera over his last four peak seasons is averaging "just" 22 or 23 intentional walks per season. His high of 32 is impressive but of course is nothing like the dizzying IBB numbers that Bonds saw. One year Bonds had 120 intentional walks.

120.

Contrast that with Cabrera. His 32 IBBs in 2010 did lead the league. But he has not led the league in any of the past three years (including this one), despite playing nearly every game.

Trivia, and I don't know the answer: Who has led the AL in IBBs in 2011, 2012, and 2013? Because it's not Cabrera.

The absurd heights that opposing managers went to to avoid him speaks to this.

This has been a big thing in Detroit sports talk this year: "Why aren't people pitching around Cabrera like they pitched around Bonds?"

The first answer, of course, is that Cabrera isn't as good as Bonds. The second answer is that it actually makes a little sense to approach the plate with pitches against Cabrera, since he does expand the strike zone.

If you were pitching to Bonds, throwing it over the plate was suicide, because he'd crush it. Deliberately working off the plate was also dumb, because he would take a ball if you hit your spot, and crush it if you missed over the plate. You were better off throwing it three feet outside.

Cabrera, on the other hand, will chase a little, though not to Vlad-ian levels. So pitchers try to nibble, and often get burned when they either miss, or Cabrera hits it anyway.

The first answer, of course, is that Cabrera isn't as good as Bonds. The second answer is that it actually makes a little sense to approach the plate with pitches against Cabrera, since he does expand the strike zone.

Um, that doesn't seem to be working out too well for them.

We should note that IBBs are also a function of the hitter behind you. But 120 IBBs basically breaks the system.

Bonds was my favorite player ever to watch hit. Part of it was his laundry, but him standing there, supremely confident, waiting for his pitch (and make no mistake, it was not the pitchers, it was his), and then the Snap! as he uncoiled and the ball was gone. The Cobra (had it not been taken) would have been a good nickname for him.

He did not have the wide variety of swings or the picture perfect stroke you see in some great hitters (Mauer has a very pretty swing, for example) though, so maybe that is what you are looking at when you prefer others.

#82 There's also weak protection in play. It's not an attractive idea to put an extra baserunner on for Fielder (even if he's not hitting like Fielder this year)

In 2004 you got generally got to face either Edgardo Alfonzo or Pedro Feliz if you walked Bonds. Often you got the platoon advantage and a pretty good DP candidate (in addition to facing a less than awesome hitter)

I only saw Barry Bonds on TV, but he indeed looked like someone who had solved the game of baseball. Fabulous to watch.

On a human plane, it was always enjoyable to watch Wade Boggs try to figure out baseball. He didn't always succeed, but he certainly looked like he was continually getting a slight edge in the calculations. I was more afraid of guys like Brett and Molitor who just seemed born to hit line drives, and I knew on some level that a TTO hitter like Jim Thome might be equally if not more valuable, but Boggs was intense fun to watch.

Further evidence - and again speaking of aesthetics, although I grant this is subjective: Miguel Cabrera over his last four peak seasons is averaging "just" 22 or 23 intentional walks per season. His high of 32 is impressive but of course is nothing like the dizzying IBB numbers that Bonds saw. One year Bonds had 120 intentional walks.

It should also be mention that Bonds wearing of armor plate largely negated the typical pitching approach that would be used against such a slugger.

He did not have the wide variety of swings or the picture perfect stroke you see in some great hitters (Mauer has a very pretty swing, for example) though, so maybe that is what you are looking at when you prefer others.

Definitely a part of it. To me, Bonds was like a robot. He had essentially solved the act of an MLB plate appearance. I admired the brutal efficiency, precision, and production, but it wasn't...fun...for me. It was all very clinical.

I can see how a hitter who swings at more pitches would generally be more fun to watch than a hitter who swings at fewer. A guy like Adam Dunn often seems to be taking pitches until either a walk or strikeout occurs, whichever happens to occur first. But Bonds only struck out about 50 times a year, which is utterly insane. Only 10 batting title qualifiers have fewer than 50 strikeouts this year. And among them, only Yadier Molina is slugging higher than .427. This guy was slugging .800.

To an extent I never saw before and don't expect to see again, Bonds' patience and perfect batting eye came off as instruments of aggression. Because he just would not ever swing at non-strikes and never struck out, the pitcher essentially had to either give him a free base, or serve up a strike to perhaps the greatest hitter ever knowing damn well that the guy was probably going to hit it somewhere. If the pitcher actually came at him like any other human being and tried to get him out by throwing hard-to-hit strikes, you almost wondered if he had lost his mind -- but you also really wanted to see if he could somehow pull it off. The starkness of the pitcher's dilemma created tremendously exciting tension.

EDIT: Cream soda to every other poster (although some liked the experience and some didn't, which is fine.)

I think historically great hitters either (1) put up multiple historically great seasons, which for me (to choose an arbitrary cutoff) is ~200 OPS+, or (2) have extended peaks/primes at ~170 OPS+ or greater.

So, yes, there are only 10-12 such modern hitters or so. Basically, I see it as a top 10 hitter all time (modern era), give or take.

Well, it depends.

If by "modern", you mean "bulk of their career after WWII, and by "extended peak/prime" you mean 5+ years, I count 8:

Williams
Bonds
Mantle
Pujols
McGwire
Musial
Mantle
Thomas

Mays only makes it to 170 for 4 consecutive years.

EDIT: And Sammy Sosa and Norm Cash had seasons of 200+ OPS+, so no that's not a marker for "historically great hitter".

He did not have the wide variety of swings or the picture perfect stroke you see in some great hitters

His swing seemed so compact that it's hard to believe he generated that much power. Probably because it was a combination of wrist snap, timing, and the ability to make contact with the bat where he wanted.

To an extent I never saw before and don't expect to see again, Bonds' patience and perfect batting eye came off as instruments of aggression. Because he just would not ever swing at non-strikes and never struck out, the pitcher essentially had to either give him a free base, or serve up a strike to perhaps the greatest hitter ever knowing damn well that the guy was probably going to hit it somewhere. If the pitcher actually came at him like any other human being and tried to get him out via throwing hard-to-hit strikes, you almost wondered if he had lost his mind -- but you also really wanted to see if he could somehow pull it off. The starkness of the pitcher's dilemma created tremendously exciting tension.

I remember just being amazed that he simply would not offer at a pitch outside of the zone, combined with: as soon as the pitcher came in, he would smack it somewhere.

Time and again I'd be thinking, well, surely he's not going to hit _another_ home run -- and then there it went.

Yes, and he choked up on it a little.
Very different from the modern trend of dropping a pinky or slight overlap grip or both - I don't remember seeing anybody doing that stuff even 10 years ago, and now it seems like there are at least a couple of guys on every team.